Apple Sales Leap 75%

[muzikool]

Wow.

Apple Computer Inc.'s iPods are still churning out startling financial results for the company, boosting revenue by 75 percent and fueling record profits in the latest quarter.

For the three months ended June 25, Apple's net income rose to $320 million, or 37 cents per share, up from the $61 million and 8 cents per share the company reported in the year-ago quarter.

Sales grew to $3.52 billion from $2.01 billion last year.

Analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial expected the company to report earnings of 31 cents per share on revenue of $3.34 billion.

Full Story

 

[zeke_mo]

damn, it would be good to own apple stock

 

[Mastershakes]

It'll be real interesting to see what happens when the fad dies.

 

[Sazar]

Revenue increased, not sales

But Apple has been doing well with their niche products and have proven that if you make something and make it good, the people will buy it.

 

[muzikool]

Revenue increased, not sales

I should have caught that, but then at the time that was the headline of the story. :squareeye

 

[the_music_man]

i bought a 20gb ipod photo on sunday
thats probably why their sales went up hehe

 

[Son Goku]

I know the thread is wrt iPod sales/revenue; but it will be interesting to see what happens when Apple moves it's computers over to Intel...

On the one hand, some die hard Mac fans might be less then pleased (the whole Mac vs. PC argument). On the other, this could bring in interest from others...

 

[gonaads]

Must be because them iPods cost roughly $400 bucks and the battery replacement costs a bit also. Not including all the accessories and such. Yeah I can see how they are generating so much revenue.



*runs*

 

[Sazar]

Must be because them iPods cost roughly $400 bucks and the battery replacement costs a bit also. Not including all the accessories and such. Yeah I can see how they are generating so much revenue.



*runs*

:laugh:

Clevah !!!

:lick:

 

[muzikool]

Must be because them iPods cost roughly $400 bucks and the battery replacement costs a bit also. Not including all the accessories and such. Yeah I can see how they are generating so much revenue.



*runs*

A majority of the accessories are 3rd-party, so those wouldn't affect the company's revenue.

 

[Shamus MacNoob]

Apple's are over priced I prefere Oranges

 

[gonaads]

A majority of the accessories are 3rd-party, so those wouldn't affect the company's revenue.

http://www.apple.com/ipod/color/accessories.html

riiiiiiite.


That is still the Apple Store.

 

[albybum]

I just bought an IPod a week ago.

 

[X-Istence]

I know the thread is wrt iPod sales/revenue; but it will be interesting to see what happens when Apple moves it's computers over to Intel...

On the one hand, some die hard Mac fans might be less then pleased (the whole Mac vs. PC argument). On the other, this could bring in interest from others...

PC = Personal Computer

Since when is a Mac or a Wintel not a PC? They both do the same thing. Serve as a personal computer. No, the diehard Mac fans will be disappointed as they believe the POWERMAC chip compared to x86 runs faster, and does more per clock (something which is true. Intel performs on avg .6 operations per clock, AMD does an avg of .9 operations per clock, and IBM does .95, source: Mac Cast's Mactel logs).

I don't like Intel for certain things, but it is an awesome move with potential. AMD might accomplish more per clock, intel is the one that can produce, and even has the money to stick to one clock speed, and improve their instructions per clock ratio. Move away from the Mhz myth.

 

[X-Istence]

http://www.apple.com/ipod/color/accessories.html

riiiiiiite.


That is still the Apple Store.

Yup, you pay a certain price i believe to be listed there. Like the Agent 18 minishield costs $20 if i buy it from the Apple Store, and it costs $20 when i buy it from www.agent18.com . Apple does not get a cut of those sales. They only get paid to be listed i believe, but even that may be wrong, they may just be nice, and have added the section to help people find what they need.

 

[gonaads]

PC = Personal Computer

Since when is a Mac or a Wintel not a PC? They both do the same thing. Serve as a personal computer. No, the diehard Mac fans will be disappointed as they believe the POWERMAC chip compared to x86 runs faster, and does more per clock (something which is true. Intel performs on avg .6 operations per clock, AMD does an avg of .9 operations per clock, and IBM does .95, source: Mac Cast's Mactel logs).

I don't like Intel for certain things, but it is an awesome move with potential. AMD might accomplish more per clock, intel is the one that can produce, and even has the money to stick to one clock speed, and improve their instructions per clock ratio. Move away from the Mhz myth.

Move away from the Mhz myth.

Well isn't that what AMD has been trying to do for a while now?

AMD might accomplish more per clock, intel is the one that can produce, and even has the money to stick to one clock speed, and improve their instructions per clock ratio.

Funny how Intel still hasn't done that yet but AMD has been the one to make the strides.

 

[X-Istence]

Well isn't that what AMD has been trying to do for a while now?

Yes, i was suggesting it towards the fact that people believe everything is about Mhz and how it would then seem that a POWERMAC chip would seem bad compared to the latest and greatest intol

Funny how Intel still hasn't done that yet but AMD has been the one to make the strides.

Intel has been doing this. Their 800 lineup has been stuck at the same 3.2 Ghz for the last few revisions, as they have made changes to the way it works, so get more instructions per clock out of it. That was the really interesting thing about listening to the Mac Cast podcast Mactel logs. It provided indepth review of what Intel chips are coming out, and when, and how fast and efficient they are.

 

[gonaads]

What gets me is how the Mac has always seemed to adress temp issues quite well when it comes to their machines. It will be interesting to see how it will fair with Intel Hibachi's inside.

 

[Son Goku]

My browser crashed when I was replying. Anyhow...

PC = Personal Computer

Since when is a Mac or a Wintel not a PC? They both do the same thing. Serve as a personal computer.

/backs slowly away...
/me thinks I stepped in something here

PC is also a term used, synonimous with x86... It can be used in either context

I do see some being displeased, but whatever the case. I'd rather not argue symantics :suprised:

Oh, and just for the record, I own an AMD processor, not an Intel.

/runs and hides :speechless:

 

[Son Goku]

I don't like Intel for certain things, but it is an awesome move with potential. AMD might accomplish more per clock, intel is the one that can produce, and even has the money to stick to one clock speed, and improve their instructions per clock ratio. Move away from the Mhz myth.

Funny how Intel still hasn't done that yet but AMD has been the one to make the strides.

It probably has a lot to do with the DEC engineers that AMD managed to soak up after Compaq canned the Alpha in moving to IA-64. That and the former partnership AMD had with Digital.

Anyhow, if we're gonna talk about instructions per clock (something I have personally discussed in the past), then this is the bad boy I wouldn't mind seeing. AKA, what would have been the Alpha 21464 or the EV8.

There is some info still online, such as this article here...

http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?articleid=RWT122600000000

Unfortunately, another PDF which the engineers from Digital put out, which they were elsewhere describing as an IA-64 killer (in comparing what they were planning on, with the IA-64 platform)...

http://www.alphapowered.com/presentations/alpha_ia64.pdf

This is as much as I can salvage (as I cited this much by email several years back)

"Intel has chosen a markedly different direction than Alpha. Intel is
introducing a new 64-bit instruction set architecture called IA64. They have called the architecture EPIC, for Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computing, but it is essentially a VLIW (Very Long Instruction Word) architecture. The IA64 architecture is very similar to the Cydrome machine, a failed minisupercomputer company of the 1980s. The first implementation of IA64 is called Merced, with a follow-on implementation called McKinley. With the IA64, Intel is focusing on a compiler-driven technology to increase instruction-level
parallelism, and is ignoring other proven ways to improve performance on large
applications. IA64 is developed for an in-order execution model, with a set of new architectural extensions to permit compilers to identify more
instruction-level parallelism. These architectural extensions will make it very difficult for IA64 processors to implement out-of-order execution or simultaneous multithreading efficiently. For most applications, the small benefit that these architectural extensions give compilers do not equal the performance lost by not using these dynamic techniques."

"The IA64 design is a derivative of the VLIW machines designed by
Multiflow and Cydrome in the 1980s. The key idea is a generalization of horizontal microcode: in a wide instruction word the processor presents control of all of the functional units to the compiler, and the compiler precisely schedules where every operation, every register file read, every bypass, will occur. In effect, the compiler creates a record of execution for the program, and the machine plays that record. In the early VLIWs, if the compiler made
a mistake, the machine generated the wrong results; the machine had no logic to check that registers were read in the correct order or if resources were oversubscribed. In more modern machines such as the IA64 processors, the machine will run slowly (but correctly) when the compiler is wrong.

The IA64 design requires the compiler to predict at compile-time how a
program will behave. Traditionally, VLIW-style machines have been built without caches and focused on loop-intensive, vectorizable code. These restrictions mean the memory latency is fixed and branch behavior is very predictable at compile-time. However, IA64 will be implemented as a general-purpose processor, with a data cache, running a wide variety of applications. In most applications, the latency of a memory operation is very difficult to
predict; a cache-miss may have a latency that is 100 times longer than a
cache hit. Alpha's out-of-order design can dynamically adjust to the cache pattern of the program; on an IA64 processor, when the compiler makes a mistake, the machine will stall. Similarly, the IA64 design requires the compiler to move code across branches to find parallelism. However, this decision requires the compiler to predict branch direction at compile-time. This is very difficult to do, and even with elaborate profile-feedback systems, where a program is run to gather information about its behavior before it is compiled, compile-time branch prediction rates are at best 85%. Without feedback, the
compile-time rates are much closer to 50%. In contrast, hardware branch predictors are 95-98% accurate. An IA64 design will be executing unprofitable
speculative instructions 3-10x more frequently than an Alpha design.

The IA64 is an architectural idea that was developed for vectorizable programs. Intel has tried to extend it to commercial applications, but it is fundamentally the wrong design for these problems."

"An explicit goal in the development of the Alpha architecture was to enable innovative performance improvements in compilers, architecture, and circuit implementation. We did not add features to the instruction set architecture that make compiler improvements easy but hardware improvements difficult. In the early 1990s, we designed a VLIW version of Alpha similar to IA64 [1,2,3,4,5,6]. During this process we discovered that most of the compiler technology for a VLIW processor could equally well be applied to a RISC processor, and that by avoiding IA64-style extensions to Alpha, we could also
implement an out-of-order processor.

Alpha is designed to exploit both compile-time and run-time information. We agree with the IA64 designers that the compiler should create a record of execution for a program. However, we also recognized that the processor will know at run-time additional information about a program's behavior, for example, whether a memory reference is a cache miss and what direction a branch executes. Rather than stall the processor when the compiler is wrong, we designed an out-of-order issue mechanism that allowed the machine to adapt to the run-time behavior of the program. In addition, a compiler has a restricted view of the program and often cannot optimize across routine or module boundaries. At run-time, an out-of-order processor can find parallelism across these boundaries. Compiler technology must be combined with out-of-order execution to extract the most instruction-level parallelism from a program."

Anyhow, the engineers who were behind this project and these sorts of ideas, were the same one's AMD managed to soak up; who could then contribute to AMD's own advancements...